DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
The prior art submitted on 5/19/26 has been considered.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12371020 (refers as ‘020). Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claim 1 in 19/248338 would have been anticipated by the invention defined in claim 1 of (‘020). Claim 1 of the present application recites:
A method comprising: determining a first stop-and-go wave based on trajectory of a control vehicle; based on the first stop-and-go wave, determining that the control vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; operating the control vehicle in accordance with a mitigation strategy based on determining that the control vehicle is entering the deceleration phase; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold has elapsed.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12371020 disclose a method comprising: determining a first stop-and-go wave based on trajectory of a control vehicle and determining a time threshold for the first stop-and-go wave; based on the first stop-and-go wave and the time threshold, determining that the control vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; activating a mitigation strategy within the control vehicle; operating the control vehicle in accordance with the mitigation strategy; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold has elapsed. Claim 1 of (‘020) obviously have all the limitations of claim 1 of current application.
Claims 2-6 of the present application is identical in scope to claims 2-6 of the U.S. Patent No. 12371020.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12371020 (refers as ‘020). Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claim 7 in 19/248338 would have been anticipated by the invention defined in claim 7 of (‘020). Claim 7 of the present application recites:
A vehicle, comprising: at least one gap detection sensor; a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determine a first stop-and-go wave based on trajectory of a control vehicle; based on the first stop-and-go wave, determine that a preceding vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; determine a threshold distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle at which to activate a mitigation strategy; operate the vehicle in accordance with the mitigation strategy when a distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or less than the threshold distance; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold elapsed.
Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12371020 disclose a vehicle, comprising: at least one gap detection sensor; a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: determine a first stop-and-go wave based on trajectory of a control vehicle and determine a time threshold for the first stop-and-go wave; based on the first stop-and-go wave and time threshold, determine that a preceding vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; determine a threshold distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle at which to activate a mitigation strategy; activate the mitigation strategy when a distance between the vehicle and the preceding vehicle is equal to or less than the threshold distance; operate the vehicle in accordance with the mitigation strategy; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold has elapsed. Claim 7 of (‘020) obviously have all the limitations of claim 7 of current application.
Claims 8-14 of the present application is identical in scope to claims 8-14 of the U.S. Patent No. 12371020.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12371020 (refers as ‘020). Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because subject matters of the invention defined in claim 15 in 19/248338 would have been anticipated by the invention defined in claim 15 of (‘020). Claim 15 of the present application recites:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: determining a first stop-and-go wave based on a control vehicle’s trajectory; based on the first stop-and-go wave, determining that the control vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; operating the control vehicle in accordance with a mitigation strategy until the control vehicle enters a cruise phase; measuring a time at which the control vehicle travels in the cruse phase; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold.
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent 12371020 disclose a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving data from a plurality of sensors to track a control vehicle’s position over time and determining a trajectory; determining a first stop-and-go wave based on the trajectory and determining a time threshold for the first stop-and-go wave; based on the first stop-and-go wave and time threshold, determining that the control vehicle is entering a deceleration phase of a second stop-and-go wave; activating a mitigation strategy within the control vehicle; operating the control vehicle in accordance with the mitigation strategy; determining that the control vehicle is entering a cruise phase; measuring the time at which the control vehicle travels in the cruise phase; and deactivating the mitigation strategy after a cruise time threshold or a cruise distance threshold. Claim 15 of (‘020) obviously have all the limitations of claim 15 of current application.
Claims 16-20 of the present application is identical in scope to claims 16-20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12371020.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
. Ali et al. (12304464)
. McBeth et al. (US 2021/0097311 A1)
. Rubin et al. (8520695)
Chaves et al. (12488682)
. Ewert (12252147)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALENA TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ADAM MOTT can be reached at 571-270-5376. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DALENA TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights